HomeMy WebLinkAbout100609 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:12 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed
the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Bill Quinn Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Chris Mehl Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Cathy Costakis
Dawn Smith
Sean Becker
Brian Caldwell, President
Erik Henyon, Vice President
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Donna Swarthout David Loseff
Ed Sypinski Carson Taylor
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Carson Taylor joined the Planning Board. He noted he was running for City Commission and had been attending meetings to introduce himself to various Boards/Commissions. He commended
the Board on the work they had done.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
Vice President Henyon asked for clarification of the final motion of the previous minutes. Mr. Caldwell responded that a continuation of the public hearing was intended in the motion.
Mr. Mehl concurred the clarification of the motion should be included. He noted Kevin Stein had been incorrectly referred to as Kevin Steinman in the public comment section of the
minutes. Vice President Henyon requested the minutes be opened and continued to the next meeting for approval of the requested edits.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Vice President Henyon seconded, to open and continue the minutes of September 15, 2009 to the next meeting of the Planning Board pending edits to the language
in the motion to indicate the intent of the Board to more thoroughly discuss the amended language during the continuation of the public hearing. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting
aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. Draft Downtown Improvement Plan (Bristor/Saunders)
1. A neighborhood plan to provide guidance and direction for future development that solidifies Downtown Bozeman’s place in the community and the Gallatin region. The plan identifies
strengths and weaknesses of the current downtown Bozeman area, and suggests policy and practice to strengthen Downtown as a mixed use area and center of the community.
Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented updated information from the Downtown Bozeman Partnership and noted the project had been continued from the last Planning Board meeting.
She noted the Downtown Bozeman Partnership had contracted LMN to do the draft of the plan. She stated the proposed revisions had been included to address public comments regarding
surface parking and the Planning Board’s previous amendments for further consideration.
Chris Naumann, executive director of the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, directed the Board’s attention to the revisions of the plan. He stated the first change occurred on page 10 and
the new revised text would replace the entire section stating “surface parking” to “maximization of underutilized parcels. He stated on page 12, the revised guiding principal would
not govern development potential. He stated on pages 18 & 19, the last sentence would read that underutilized parcels would be redeveloped. He stated on pages 20 & 21, the table and
illustration would highlight areas for developers. He stated on the illustration for Areas of Opportunity would be more general without identifying specific parcels. He stated the
identification of potential development sites had been included with a variety of development options. President Caldwell asked for clarification of the intent of the diagram and how
it was to show an example of what development would be achieved in the next 15 years; he asked how public comment had been addressed with the amendments. Mr. Naumann responded 300 -500
units had been quite a bit of housing and the intent of the diagram had been to depict the achievement of residential infill within the next fifteen years and that it would be possible
with examples of the types of area. He stated the market would not bear the development all at once.
Mr. Mehl asked how many parking stalls within a block of downtown were existing. Planner Bristor responded she did not have the amounts memorized. Mr. Mehl asked if the current amounts
were considered sufficient; yes or no. Planner Bristor responded the current amounts were sufficient, but she was not a transportation engineer. Mr. Naumann added that appendices would
be included to provide for acknowledgements and detailed next steps. He suggested the Board recommend approval for the document to the City Commission in lieu of no “net loss of parking”
recommendations by the Board.
Mr. Naumann continued to summarize the identified strategies of the plan. He explained the loose identification of the objectives of the plan considered pre-existing conditions and
that it would be a disadvantage to look at the downtown as a generic. He noted there were distinct areas within the district and included the Conservation and Entryway Districts. He
noted the plan had been left broad to provide for the unique areas within the downtown district. He noted the objectives had included the greatest potential for residential density.
He noted there would need to be a variety of housing types; i.e. emphasizing different price points, styles, sizes, etc. He noted the next strategy was to create a network of open
spaces that would serve downtown well
in the downtown district. He stated the greening of streets and planting of street trees had been included as “small scale greening”; he add it was geared to making downtown more pedestrian
friendly. He stated the pocket park concept had been embraced with the use of Bozeman Creek as an amenity. He stated the next strategy addressed taming the traffic and accentuation
of downtown pedestrian traffic; he noted the enhancement of Main Street to Mendenhall Street called out the initiative to be in place. He stated the opportunity to extend Babcock Street
had been provided for in case the extension to the Library would occur. He stated there were a variety of initiatives to provide focus to pedestrians included in the plan. He stated
infill was encouraged not only for commerce, but residential uses as well. He stated the call out to the fact that Bozeman had done an excellent job in place-making in the downtown
area. He noted a series of technical assistance programs had been included to provide seed money for a developer or property owner. He noted there had been a series of ideas to be
used to attract start-up businesses and would be included in the 10-15 year plan. He stated there could be unique code for the downtown area and would fall back on the first proposed
strategy; he noted it would reiterate building heights. He noted the floor area ratio would need to be adopted as it was universally utilized and recognized. He stated cash in lieu
had been suggested to be allocated to a specific downtown park fund. He noted the strategies included were a culmination of an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable
community. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
President Caldwell opened the item for pubic comment.
David Loseff, majority owner of the Baxter Hotel, joined the PB. He stated there were good elements to the plan, but he had comments on the proposed amendments. He stated key elements
were missing; he suggested the inclusion of other comparable progressive cities be investigated, he suggested looking at the “parking lot” issue more broadly, he suggested Bozeman was
more of a tourism hub and that strategy should be used, he suggested the Board think more about access. He stated the Plan was focused on the wrong things with regard to trade-offs.
He stated Willson Avenue had a current waterworks project and a week later there would be a Northwestern Energy project. He stated he would love to see nice alleys, but when transformers
were included they were an eyesore and a policy would need to be included to allow for viewshed issues. He noted there was no coordination for infrastructure projects between the City
and Northwest Energy. He suggested a plan would be necessary to provide for the future infrastructure demands/needs over the next 15 -20 years. He asked that the “no net loss” language
remain as part of the document. He suggested many items would need much more thought.
President Caldwell responded that he would like to point out that as much as they’d like the Plan to be the omnibus for the City of Bozeman, other plans were in affect that would address
the issues stated in Mr. Loseff’s public comment. He stated coordination efforts had been included in the guiding principles of each document that held jurisdiction; he noted the purpose
of the Improvement Plan was to address the specific neighborhood of the downtown.
Seeing no further public comment, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of the meeting. He asked members of the Planning Board to forward a series of recommendations
to the City Commission. He stated the proposed changes by Mr. Naumann had been more of an
accurate proposal as opposed to the inclusion of the “no net loss” language the Planning Board had suggested. He stated he looked forward to seeing the draft plan as amended go to the
Commission for review.
Mr. Mehl asked if the applicant could address the two issues of public comment that were outstanding. Mr. Naumann responded that during the process, the consulting team of LMN, an economic
expert (Leland Consulting Group), TD&H, and Billings (High Plains Architects) had worked on downtown plans in numbers and were aware of plans in many other communities and had referenced
them during the preliminary review and plan drafting. He stated the capitalization of the regional park had been included in part of the economic engine and the focus had been on the
most lacking and underdeveloped housing component. He noted that the consulting budget of ~$75,000 had caused limitations in detail and added that Missoula had spent $350,000 in the
formulation of a highly detailed plan; he noted the consulting team had reviewed other areas of comparable size and location while compiling the Plan’s strategies.
Ms. Costakis thanked Mr. Naumann on his thoughtful edits as she thought they were great improvements to the previous draft. She suggested the intensification of development in the downtown
area may necessitate more parking though she knew it was an expensive route to take. She suggested a downtown parking management plan and suggested the exploration of all parking possibilities.
She stated she thought the document establishes a framework and detailed issues could be explored more in depth when they came up as the plan spoke to guidelines. She stated language
had been included in the plan that suggested studies prior to the institution of any of the objectives. She stated transportation issues would be handled with the Transportation Plan.
Vice President Henyon suggested the inclusion of Mr. Loseff’s public comments. He stated on page 31, the tourism hub concept (like in historic towns along the east coast) should include
well placed signage (way finding signage) outside the City to direct people to the historic downtown core. He stated on page 39, he suggested he was in complete agreement that the coordination
of the Engineering and all utility and infrastructure players” and thought it could be included here. He stated at the bottom of the first paragraph should include “always considering
what’s being done in other communities similar to Bozeman.” He stated on page 13 and page 18, #8 should include in guiding principles “housing for all income levels should be encouraged
by market driven housing choices” with just “market driven” being included on page 18. President Caldwell responded he thought it would be unnecessary to add that language as the market
was always the driving force. Vice President Henyon responded he was attempting to provide for affordable housing and he was attempting to encourage infill. President Caldwell responded
that the UDO addressed the affordable housing requirements. Planner Bristor added that the simplification of the review process mentioned on page 38 would also address Vice President
Henyon’s concerns. President Caldwell noted coordination of efforts could be a double-edged sword and could become cumbersome, though he agreed that there would be a way to address
those items with UDO edits. Vice President Henyon asked if the applicant had any issues with his suggested edits to the Draft Improvement Plan. President Caldwell suggested way finding
signage had been applied for. Mr. Naumann responded the suggested amendments would not be difficult to include and would only benefit rather than hinder the approval of the plan.
Mr. Becker noted the wayfinding signage had already been proposed as a UDO amendment and coordination of efforts would be important for their efforts. He stated the other side of the
equation would be the redoing of buildings at an inconvenient time that would not lend well to coordination. He stated the vision of the downtown businesses and residents had been included
and the downtown plan had been authorized by the City of Bozeman. He stated the consistency in vision and policy decisions was of utmost importance with regard to the Plan. He stated
part of the plan’s presentation included a comparative analysis of cities not included in the written plan. He asked if the architects would be in attendance at the City Commission
meeting. He asked if changes would be completed by Mr. Naumann. Mr. Naumann responded they would be completed by the Downtown Bozeman Partnership.
Vice President Henyon stated he withdrew his suggestion for market driven language and suggested wayfinding signage and acknowledgement of continuing studies of like communities be continually
included in the document. Ms. Costakis stated she was supportive of the suggestion of way finding signs not only within the downtown core, but also locations within the greater downtown
area. Mr. Mehl suggested GVLT was intending to provide much of the signage suggested by Vice President Henyon and Ms. Costakis on community trails. Planner Bristor responded UDO amendments
included way finding signage language and such historic district signage had been recognized among community members as important and had started conversations with the State Department
of Transportation.
Mr. Naumann suggested including the language “consider developing a comprehensive wayfinding signage plan to accentuate historic downtown Bozeman and the core area”.
MOTION: Vice President Henyon moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to add language to page 31 as suggested by Mr. Naumann to include “consider developing a comprehensive wayfinding signage plan
to accentuate historic downtown Bozeman and the core area”. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith,
Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none.
Vice Chariperson Henyon suggested the inclusion of language on page 41 to continue to look at other historic downtown area communities via studies. Mr. Quinn stated that the issue had
been well addressed with regard to studies from other towns and he thought the inclusion of the suggested language would be redundant and unnecessary.
MOTION: Vice President Henyon moved to include on page 41 the language in the last sentence “look at what is being done in other places so Bozeman doesn’t make the same mistakes.”
No second was forthcoming. The motion died.
Mr. Becker asked if the plan could be renamed to the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Framework instead of Plan. Mr. Naumann responded the name “Downtown Bozeman Framework Plan” had been
suggested; he noted the plan that had been replaced had included the language “Improvement”. Mr. Becker asked if Mr. Naumann agreed that the Draft Plan was more of a framework. Mr.
Naumann concurred.
President Caldwell added that the first paragraph of the Plan spoke to the “framework” reference and suggested sticking with the title that had been suggested by the consultants. Mr.
Becker suggested the maps in the document were awful and suggested that every map be redone so that it was clear; was it a pancreas or downtown Bozeman. Mr. Naumann responded formatting
could be corrected and maps would be more accurately depicted; he suggested a larger format map could be included. Vice President Henyon suggested making all portions of the draft pie
chart (on page 6) equal to provide for easier reading. Planner Bristor responded page 11 contained a lot of mention of Mr. Henyon’s concerns; she noted it had been the intent of the
consultants to highlight those items for economic development trends; she noted the strategy used to emphasize the uniqueness of the area. President Caldwell noted the depiction was
not the most Photo Shop friendly diagram, but was not meant to belittle the rest of the sum of all the parts. Mr. Becker stated he was disappointed that the architect would not be returning
for the City Commission hearing for the proposal; he suggested many items could be more pronounced. Mr. Naumann responded the document contained more information in different sections
of the document.
Mr. Becker addressed regulatory impediments citing specifics of liquor licensing. Mr. Naumann responded that the consultants had been surprised to learn that a plan would go through
several advisory boards with the Commission as the deciding body. He stated those suggestions had been mentioned and the verbage did not call out those items specifically. President
Caldwell added encouragement of businesses had been addressed in the downtown parking requirements and parking standards had been discussed at length. He noted there were a number of
specific action items addressing those concerns. Mr. Becker added specifics had been included to address parking concerns with the pending UDO amendments. Mr. Becker asked if Mr. Naumann
had figured out how the surface parking had been purchased. Mr. Naumann responded the downtown business owners had purchased surface parking via the City of Bozeman.
Mr. Mehl asked why language had been removed suggesting a three lane configuration of Main Street. Mr. Naumann responded that analysis had concluded that the costs would outweigh the
benefits of the configuration. Mr. Mehl asked if the TIF funds had been specified in the Draft document and asked if the Board had discussed the language within the document. Mr. Naumann
responded the TIF had been approached with regard to the language of the document and was supportive of the implementation of those improvements. Mr. Mehl asked if the “no net loss”
language was proposed to be removed from the document, and why. Mr. Naumann responded that one reason would be that there was no sure way to determine if there was an adequate amount
of parking in downtown Bozeman. President Caldwell added the convenient availability of parking throughout the district would also be a question. Mr. Mehl asked how much bendability
would be needed with regard to parking calculations. Mr. Naumann responded further analysis would always be necessary.
Ms. Costakis asked if a comprehensive plan should have been sought and the money be raised to provide for the plan. Mr. Naumann responded the neighborhood plan provided for a less intensive
plan while other community’s had been very detailed, identifying private properties that they would be purchasing. Ms. Costakis added implementation of the document would be the difficult
part. She noted the “local and unique” language should be emphasized to prevent “anywhere USA” from happening and keep Bozeman local and unique.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Becker seconded, to retain the language “no net loss of public surface parking” and to include Downtown Bozeman Partnership amendments presented this evening.
The motion carried 6-1. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being Vice President Henyon.
Ms. Costakis suggested the language “no net loss in number of public parking spaces” with the removal of the word “surface” from the motion. Mr. Mehl concurred.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Ms. Costakis seconded, to include the language “no net loss of public parking spaces” and to include Mr. Naumann’s amendments presented this evening.
The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none.
FINAL MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Draft Downtown Improvement Plan including the language “no net
loss of public parking spaces”, to recommend a study for public parking utilization, to add language to page 31 as suggested by Mr. Naumann to “consider developing a comprehensive wayfinding
signage plan to accentuate historic Downtown Bozeman and the core area”, and to include Mr. Naumann’s amendments presented this evening. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being
President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEM
1. GROWTH POLICY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A public meeting to provide opportunity for Planning Board members to discuss implementation of the Growth Policy and Economic Development Plans.
President Caldwell asked for specific comments regarding this discussion and suggested the Board move on. Mr. Mehl asked Mr. Becker asked if the circle could be broken with regard City
Commission review of the Economic Development Plan. Mr. Becker responded the process had been moved forward by the Commission asking Staff to provide a liaison for the advisory board
overseeing the implementation of the Economic Development Plan and they were currently awaiting the hiring of the consultant; he suggested a scoping meeting be held. Mr. Mehl stated
he was supportive of the scoping meeting. Vice President Henyon stated implementation strategies had been tackled with regard to the Growth Policy and noted which talking points had
been discussed. He stated the sign ordinance had been discussed and the economic development concerns had been directed toward the sign code. Ms. Smith suggested some opinions on the
survey Vice President Henyon was discussing should be fairer and the survey results had been subjective. Vice President Henyon explained.
Ms. Costakis asked for clarification of the Complete Streets ordinance or resolution; she suggested members of other boards could be approached to promote the complete streets resolution.
President Caldwell suggested Complete Streets be discussed on a future agenda after
Ms. Costakis had approached other Boards/Commissions.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business forthcoming.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman